klimek added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Tooling/Tooling.cpp:117
// The one job we find should be to invoke clang again.
const auto &Cmd = cast<driver::Command>(*Jobs.begin());
if (StringRef(Cmd.getCreator().getName()) != "clang") {
----------------
tra wrote:
> hliao wrote:
> > tra wrote:
> > > hliao wrote:
> > > > tra wrote:
> > > > > Is this still the right job for us to pick? I think we want this to
> > > > > be the host compilation.
> > > > >
> > > > > As things are right now my guess is that we're probably picking the
> > > > > first device-side compilation.
> > > > yes, OffloadAction is appended to the original host action. The
> > > > corresponding first job is the host compilation. The frontend has
> > > > similar handling in `lib/Frontend/CreateInvocationFromCommandLine.cpp`
> > > Can we add an assert or diagnostics for that? I think the check below
> > > would not always be able to tell if it unintentionally picked a wrong
> > > kind of job.
> > It seems to me that the `cast<>` and check against "clang" @ L118 already
> > did what I asked.
> Device-side compilation would also use clang, so the check for `clang` is
> insufficient for ensuring that it's a *host* compilation.
>
> Furthermore, the order of jobs *will* change depending on whether
> -fsyntax-only is in effect.
>
> @klimek -- Manuel, Is tooling allowed to create an invocation w/o
> `-fsyntax-only`? AFAICT, `runToolOnCodeWithArgs` always adds it, but one
> could technically create an `Invocation` without it.
Generally, tooling is allowed to do it, but it's not super well supported or
tested.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68660/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68660
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
